I am sure many of you have discussions with your friends on the NYTimes infamous articles. I had friends call me, and it is dinner/bar conversation that inevitably comes up.

Here are some facts that you may like to use in a conversation.

The 1st and 2nd articles by Jim Glanz no longer accepts comments. Huh?

Comments are no longer being accepted. Please submit a letter to the editor for print consideration.

There is a correction posted on Sept 24.

Correction: September 24, 2012

A previous version of this article misstated why Microsoft wasted millions of watts of electricity, according to records. It was an attempt to erase a $210,000 penalty the utility said the company owed for overestimating its power use, not underestimating its power use.

The NYTimes Public Editor has an article on balanced reporting and the pitfalls of "false equivalency". The editor closes with a statement that is hard to believe is a truth applied to the data center articles.

It ought to go without saying, but I’m going to say it anyway: Journalists need to make every effort to get beyond the spin and help readers know what to believe, to help them make their way through complicated and contentious subjects.

The more news organizations can state established truths and stand by them, the better off the readership — and the democracy — will be.

When you look at the last 7 days.

The most e-mailed shows the Power, Pollution and Internet at #11.

The article does get most blogged with #1 and #4 positions for the two articles

But the article doesn't make the Top 20 views for NYTimes overall or in Science over the last 7 days.

So this would seem like the articles stirred up the tech savvy data center community with e-mail forwarding and blog posts, but net didn't get that much traffic for the NYTimes.

If you ran the NYTimes would you give the go ahead for more articles or not?